Post Trade Deadline Twins Prospect Rankings

[Seth Stohs]

Earlier today, Aaron Gleeman posted a tweet with his updated Twins prospect rankings, so I decided to share mine on Twitter as well. Feel free to discuss these two rankings or if you find other updated rankings, post them here too..

 

https://twitter.com/AaronGleeman/status/1025104224722608128

 

https://twitter.com/SethTweets/status/1025114546955005952 

[gman]

It's interesting to note that our top 3 prospects could all make the Twins roster before age 22 perhaps age 21. Then there are anoth 4 or 5 who could make the roster before they are 24/25. This should make for a very young roster by 2021 when Rosario, Sano, Buxton, Berrios & Kepler will be the senior members of the team at 27/28.

[Badsmerf]

How is Duran Duran not number 1 at this point? I mean... dudes throw'n aces!

[Otto von Ballpark]

How is Duran Duran not number 1 at this point? I mean... dudes throw'n aces!

They haven't been #1 since 1985:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pQDMi4W-g

[Thrylos]

I am not even close to give it an intelligent thought regarding how these guys will rate among the other Twins' prospects quite yet, because lots of them will be traded.

 

That said:

 

I would agree that Duran should be higher than what the MLB.com pipeline rating is.  Both he and Alcala have future closer stuff.

 

The other guy who popped out was Luke Raley.  Same age, same level as Brent Rooker, and just almost as good in the numbers, other that K stuff.  And the guy makes me think Logan Morrison for some reason.  And I have not settled in my mind whether that is good or bad.  Yet.

 

(and Kirilloff and Gordon and Gonsalves are all overrated btw

[Han Joelo]

Kind of fun to compare your lists--there was a time when I toggled between Gleeman.com and Sethspeaks.net all the time.  Nice flashback.  The big discrepancy at first glance is on Landon Leach.

[AlwaysinModeration]

Who is Misael Urbina?

[BK432]

 

Who is Misael Urbina?

 

New guy, signed last month as the #3 international FA. 16 year old kid, it'll be a while, but like any 16 year old prospect, wide floor/ceiling bars.

[Seth Stohs]

 

Kind of fun to compare your lists--there was a time when I toggled between Gleeman.com and Sethspeaks.net all the time.  Nice flashback.  The big discrepancy at first glance is on Landon Leach.

 

Leach is 32 for me. I saw him this spring and he is impressive. Throws really hard, ,just really raw. He could be one to watch in 2019!

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I am not even close to give it an intelligent thought regarding how these guys will rate among the other Twins' prospects quite yet, because lots of them will be traded.

 

That said:

 

I would agree that Duran should be higher than what the MLB.com pipeline rating is.  Both he and Alcala have future closer stuff.

 

The other guy who popped out was Luke Raley.  Same age, same level as Brent Rooker, and just almost as good in the numbers, other that K stuff.  And the guy makes me think Logan Morrison for some reason.  And I have not settled in my mind whether that is good or bad.  Yet.

 

(and Kirilloff and Gordon and Gonsalves are all overrated btw

 

Please explain how Kirilloff is over rated? I've seen you post this on many occasions and even on Twitter? I'd like to know what you see compared to every other person who follows the Twins and the National writer? Do you still think he won't adjust because he was home schooled?

[Twinsoholic]

Miranda is way too low on both ranking lists. Why Baddoo is ahead of him is not clear to me. Baddoo is clearly a very good prospect, but what Miranda is doing is being underappreciated as far as the rankings go in my opinion.

[Han Joelo]

 

Leach is 32 for me. I saw him this spring and he is impressive. Throws really hard, ,just really raw. He could be one to watch in 2019!

Oh--well, not to split hairs, but isn't he at 18 on the list above?

[drivlikejehu]

 

Miranda is way too low on both ranking lists. Why Baddoo is ahead of him is not clear to me. Baddoo is clearly a very good prospect, but what Miranda is doing is being underappreciated as far as the rankings go in my opinion.

 

Baddoo has better offensive production and more defensive value, but I'm a fan of Miranda and his stock is rising.

[Twinsoholic]

I will grant the possibility of more defensive value if Baddoo sticks in center field. In terms of offensive production, he has 20 stolen bases to 0 for Miranda. Baddoo has a slight edge in OPS: .778 to .767. Baddoo has a little more edge in OBP: .361 to .326, but Miranda had a brutal start to this season. 

 

Look at Baddoo's strikeout total: 101 (Miranda has 49 strikeouts, and he has about 10 more games). Miranda's batting average is .279 compared to Baddoo's .246. Miranda has 72 rbis to Baddoo's 32.

 

I hope both are fabulously successful. I am just thinking Baddoo's hype and his numbers are maybe off a bit. I do like Baddoo's 9 homers.

[Thrylos]

 

Please explain how Kirilloff is over rated?

 

Compared to Graterol and Rooker, he is.   They are both ahead of him. 

 

Kiriloff's hit and power tool are above average and might be approaching plus.  His fielding and arm are both below average and his speed/base running is much below average.  He does not walk much (career: 0.044 isoD).   To me he projects as a LF/DH.  Which is fine.  He is still a top 10 prospect in this system, with pretty much similar profile to Lanarch btw who might actually be a step ahead of them in fielding, arm, speed, and discipline.  

 

My point is that he is overrated, which means that I think that there are better prospects than him, not that he is a bad prospect.  Just not that high in this team.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Compared to Graterol and Rooker, he is.   They are both ahead of him. 

 

Kiriloff's hit and power tool are above average and might be approaching plus.  His fielding and arm are both below average and his speed/base running is much below average.  He does not walk much (career: 0.044 isoD).   To me he projects as a LF/DH.  Which is fine.  He is still a top 10 prospect in this system, with pretty much similar profile to Lanarch btw who might actually be a step ahead of them in fielding, arm, speed, and discipline.  

 

My point is that he is overrated, which means that I think that there are better prospects than him, not that he is a bad prospect.  Just not that high in this team.

 

Rooker can't field a position, can he? That's one reason he's not higher ranked. At best he's a 1B/DH.

[SF Twins Fan]

 

Compared to Graterol and Rooker, he is.   They are both ahead of him. 

 

Kiriloff's hit and power tool are above average and might be approaching plus.  His fielding and arm are both below average and his speed/base running is much below average.  He does not walk much (career: 0.044 isoD).   To me he projects as a LF/DH.  Which is fine.  He is still a top 10 prospect in this system, with pretty much similar profile to Lanarch btw who might actually be a step ahead of them in fielding, arm, speed, and discipline.  

 

My point is that he is overrated, which means that I think that there are better prospects than him, not that he is a bad prospect.  Just not that high in this team.

 

 

So he's overrated because you feel there are two prospects that should be higher than him? How does that make him overrated?

 

What position is Rooker going to play in the MLB? He isn't going to play OF and his bat is only going to make it if he can decrease his strikeout percentage below 30%. This is basically Kirilloff's first full season (He's 2.4 years younger than the league average) and he has a .974 fielding percentage in the OF compared to Rooker's .914 fielding percentage in the OF. Looking at Ranger Factor per 9 Kirilloff has a 1.83 in the OF this season and Rooker has a 1.16 in the OF.

 

So how is Rooker a better prospect?

 

*All of these stats are per baseball reference.

[Thrylos]

 

So he's overrated because you feel there are two prospects that should be higher than him? How does that make him overrated?

 

What position is Rooker going to play in the MLB? He isn't going to play OF and his bat is only going to make it if he can decrease his strikeout percentage below 30%. This is basically Kirilloff's first full season (He's 2.4 years younger than the league average) and he has a .974 fielding percentage in the OF compared to Rooker's .914 fielding percentage in the OF. Looking at Ranger Factor per 9 Kirilloff has a 1.83 in the OF this season and Rooker has a 1.16 in the OF.

 

So how is Rooker a better prospect?

 

*All of these stats are per baseball reference.

 

Rooker is a first baseman, not an outfielder.  So comparing them at OF does not make much sense.   Rooker's plate discipline, power, speed, and fielding tools are better.  And at the AA level.

 

Rooker can't field a position, can he? That's one reason he's not higher ranked. At best he's a 1B/DH.

 

He can field first base fine.  They are playing him at the OF in the minors for versatility purposes and to give others reps at 1B, but he is not an outfielder.

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Rooker is a first baseman, not an outfielder.  So comparing them at OF does not make much sense.   Rooker's plate discipline, power, speed, and fielding tools are better.  And at the AA level.

 

 

He can field first base fine.  They are playing him at the OF in the minors for versatility purposes and to give others reps at 1B, but he is not an outfielder.

 

That was my point....an OF > 1B.....that's one reason Kiriloff is higher rated...

[SF Twins Fan]

 

That was my point....an OF > 1B.....that's one reason Kiriloff is higher rated...

 

If I could like this 100 times I would. You can’t claim a player whose only positions are 1st base and DH is a better fielder than a player who can play in the outfield, 1st base and DH.

[Thrylos]

 

That was my point....an OF > 1B.....that's one reason Kiriloff is higher rated...

 

I think that there is a misunderstanding between WAR baseline calculations and subjective projected prospect ability

 

According to the above logic Brunansky > Hrbek, which I don't think was ever the case...

 

To say that in general someone who can play OF, can play 1B, is a bit of generalization.  The problem with that is that 1B is the position with the most chances in baseball, since it is involved in the majority of outs.   I am not convinced that Kirilloff's glove will ever be good enough to play 1B and have 20-30 chances or so instead of 5-6 or so a game

[SF Twins Fan]

 

I think that there is a misunderstanding between WAR baseline calculations and subjective projected prospect ability

 

According to the above logic Brunansky > Hrbek, which I don't think was ever the case...

 

To say that in general someone who can play OF, can play 1B, is a bit of generalization.  The problem with that is that 1B is the position with the most chances in baseball, since it is involved in the majority of outs.   I am not convinced that Kirilloff's glove will ever be good enough to play 1B and have 20-30 chances or so instead of 5-6 or so a game

 

 

I bet Brunansky would be a better 1st baseman than Hrbek would be an outfielder.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think that there is a misunderstanding between WAR baseline calculations and subjective projected prospect ability

 

According to the above logic Brunansky > Hrbek, which I don't think was ever the case...

 

To say that in general someone who can play OF, can play 1B, is a bit of generalization.  The problem with that is that 1B is the position with the most chances in baseball, since it is involved in the majority of outs.   I am not convinced that Kirilloff's glove will ever be good enough to play 1B and have 20-30 chances or so instead of 5-6 or so a game

 

No, that's not the same.....at all. 

 

The value of an OF > 1B....in a vacuum. That's a well accepted fact across all of the internet (and I assume baseball, given how FA and trades work out). I didn't have any idea this would be controversial.

 

The delta between good and bad 1B is pretty tiny, when you look at DRS and FG's defensive stats, while the delta between good and bad OF is much, much, much, larger.

[Thrylos]

 

No, that's not the same.....at all. 

 

The value of an OF > 1B....in a vacuum. That's a well accepted fact across all of the internet (and I assume baseball, given how FA and trades work out). I didn't have any idea this would be controversial.

 

The delta between good and bad 1B is pretty tiny, when you look at DRS and FG's defensive stats, while the delta between good and bad OF is much, much, much, larger.

 

1B is actually on of the positions which, because of the seer amount of chances, FP, or errors, is a decent metric, in addition to a range indicating metric, like plus minus, or DRS or UZR.  Good luck finding advance defensive metrics for minor leaguers.

 

If an opinion is widely accepted in the internet, does not make it a fact    Esp. in subjective matters like this, which do not have many facts.   Was Delmon factually the best player to come out in a decade?

 

[Thrylos]

 

 

I bet Brunansky would be a better 1st baseman than Hrbek would be an outfielder.

 

Hrbek 38.6 bWAR vs Brunansky 22.0 bWAR, using a metric that punishes 1B more than OFs.

 

Hrbek was the best player. Even if Brunansky was a 1B, Hrbek would still be the best 1B (and best player).

 

Same with Rooker and Kirilloff, in my opinion. 

 

YMMV.  It is all subjective.

[Mike Sixel]

 

1B is actually on of the positions which, because of the seer amount of chances, FP, or errors, is a decent metric, in addition to a range indicating metric, like plus minus, or DRS or UZR.  Good luck finding advance defensive metrics for minor leaguers.

 

If an opinion is widely accepted in the internet, does not make it a fact    Esp. in subjective matters like this, which do not have many facts.   Was Delmon factually the best player to come out in a decade?

 

the opinion is reflected in FA deals and trades also......

 

Your other argument, about Hrbek vs Bruno has nothing to do with the relative value of their positions, but their ability to hit, which is a completely different discussion.

 

And, it isn't actually "subjective", you can measure the relative value of the delta between good and bad players at positions, and across positions pretty easily, with numbers, just like you posted.

[Dman]

 

Compared to Graterol and Rooker, he is.   They are both ahead of him. 

 

Kiriloff's hit and power tool are above average and might be approaching plus.  His fielding and arm are both below average and his speed/base running is much below average.  He does not walk much (career: 0.044 isoD).   To me he projects as a LF/DH.  Which is fine.  He is still a top 10 prospect in this system, with pretty much similar profile to Lanarch btw who might actually be a step ahead of them in fielding, arm, speed, and discipline.  

 

My point is that he is overrated, which means that I think that there are better prospects than him, not that he is a bad prospect.  Just not that

high in this team.

 

I don't know that seems a bit nit picky to me.  Hey, you are entitled to your opinion but it definitely runs contrary to most others observations.

 

IMO Kiriloff has an elite hit tool.  He doesn't walk much, because when pitchers throw him a strike he hits it.  His K rate is 17% to Rookers 30%.  Rooker has plus power but it looks like Kiriloff might as well.  Rooker has 20 home runs to Kiriloffs 16.  Rooker is walking about 10% of the time compared to 8% for Kiriloff not a huge difference there. Especially when that seemed to be a concern of yours,

 

Defensively I haven't had the privilege to personally watch either one but Fangraphs has Kiriloffs arm rated 60 his running and fielding are rated higher than Rooker as well.  On MLB both players are rated average except in fielding where Rooker is rate below average.

 

You can say Kiriloff is worse than Rooker all you like but I don't see how the stats nor industry prospect evaluators back that up.

[Tom Froemming]

1. Lewis

2. Kirilloff

3. Graterol

4. Rooker

5. Gordon

6. Gonsalves

7. Larnach

8. Baddoo

9. Thorpe

10. Javier

11. Rortvedt

12. Littell

13. Wade

14. Alcala

15. Blankenhorn

16. Severino

17. Celestino

18. Miranda

19. Jeffers

20. Enlow

21. Urbina

22. Duran

23. Arraez

24. Pearson

25. Stewart

[Tomj14]

 

And, it isn't actually "subjective", you can measure the relative value of the delta between good and bad players at positions, and across positions pretty easily, with numbers, just like you posted.

Doesn't it really come down to who "you" think is going to be best major league ball player?

If somebody thinks that Rooker could/will be an all star first basemen and thinks Kirilloff is going to be a good every day player, then you would say Rooker is the better prospect or vice versa.

But IMO if you believe that OF > 1B is the end all to decide between prospects than the Twins made a huge mistake drafting Rooker that high when a OF is greater than 1B.

Now I believe Kirilloff is going to have a better major league career than Rooker for multiple reasons but not based on the fact he plays OF vs 1B.

Just my two cents, but as my friend's son always says "just give me two cents because it is worth more than your opinion"

[bighat]

Gimme Royce Lewis in a Twins uniform, and give it to me now.

 

OK, at least promote him to Chattanooga!  He's the real deal.